1 / 18

Michigan State University Preparation for EC 2000

Michigan State University Preparation for EC 2000. Thomas F. Wolff, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies College of Engineering Michigan State University http://www.egr.msu.edu/~wolff with thanks to Dr. P. David Fisher Electrical & Computer Engineering. Presentation Outline.

randall-hampton
Download Presentation

Michigan State University Preparation for EC 2000

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Michigan State UniversityPreparation for EC 2000 Thomas F. Wolff, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies College of Engineering Michigan State University http://www.egr.msu.edu/~wolff with thanks toDr. P. David Fisher Electrical & Computer Engineering

  2. Presentation Outline • What was MSU’s approach to EC2000 ? • Organizational Structure ? • Timeline? • Principal Activities and Accomplishments ? • What did we learn ? • About our program(s)? • About the EC2000 process? • What were the costs and benefits ?

  3. Principal Activities Spring 1997 (-5 Semesters) • Formed College Level Task Force • Membership (not curriculum committee) • Charge from the Dean • Timeline

  4. Principal Activities Spring 1997 (-5 Semesters) • Outcomes for semester • Recommended we go for EC2000 in 1998 • Developed a set of operating principles • Identified constituent groups • Recommended continuation of the Task Force and with a new mission

  5. Operating Principles • Striving to develop and improve an academic program represents a continuous process. • An educational program objective is acceptable only if outcome measures exist to demonstrate progress toward, including achievement of, the objective.

  6. Operating Principles (Cont’d.) • The assessment of educational outcomes requires the involvement of the constituents. • Different assessment instruments may serve different purposes; however, the set of all assessment instruments must provide adequate coverage of the stated program educational objectives.

  7. Operating Principles (Cont’d) • Assessment involves sampling various populations. The sizes of the samples and the sampling frequencies must be justified. • All surveys should be consistent with MSU’s policies related to research involving human subjects.

  8. Operating Principles (Cont’d) • The cost of the ongoing assessment process must be budgeted, monitored and maintained at a reasonable level.

  9. Determine educational objectives Determine Outcomes Required to Achieve Objectives Determine How Outcomes will be Achieved Evaluate/Assess Determine How Outcomes will be Assessed Input from Constituencies Formal Instruction Student Activities Establish Indicators that Objectives are Being Achieved The Two Loops of EC2000

  10. The Constituents • Our Students • Our Alumni • Our Faculty and Academic Staff • The Employers of Our Students • Our Corporate Sponsors

  11. Principal Activities Summer 1997 (-4 Semesters) • College Level • Partitioned self-study tasks between the college and departments • Developed a model faculty curriculum vitae • Should have developed model course syllabi • Reviewed ABET’s evaluation process and criteria and evaluated each of our programs • Identified a college-level weakness (GE Fund)

  12. Principal ActivitiesFall 1997 (-3 Semesters) • Department Level • Faculty developed CVs (2-page limit) • Faculty should have developed course syllabi (2-page limit) • Faculty developed CQI lecture and laboratory analysis and plans documents (each course) • Faculty began to collect student work

  13. Principal Activities Spring 1998 (-2 Semesters) • College and department levels • College developed Appendix II draft • Departments developed Appendix I draft • Departments developed Parts A & B drafts • Faculty discussed program improvement plans There was a very significant amount of inter-departmental cooperation during the preparation of these self studies.

  14. Principal Activities Summer 1998 (-1 Semester) • College and Department Levels • Appendices I & II completed—June 1 • Parts A & B completed and integrated with appendices—June 15 • College-level review and final edits—June 26 • Diskettes and required support material submitted to ABET—July 1 (ABET’s deadline) • Bound hardcopies of all self studies produced and distributed—September 1

  15. STUDENTS CONSTITUENTS PROGRAM OBJECTIVES ACADEMIC PROGRAM FACULTY COMP ASSESSMENT GRADUATES ABET 2000 in a Nutshell

  16. Cost of Going to EC2000 • People Resources (over and above normal prep) • 1/4 FTE for each academic program (2 years) • 1/4 FTE to provide overall college coordination (2 years) • Burden shifts from administrators to the faculty • Size of the self-study report (EE Program) • Volume I—210 pp. (1992) & 57 pp. (1998) • Volume II —257 pp. (1992) & 212 pp. (1998) • EC2000Support Volume: 262 pp. (1998)

  17. Long-Term Benefits • Course Learning Objectives put in place • Improves student advising process • Improves course consistency from term to term • Improves interfaces among courses • Formal Feedback Mechanisms put in place • Improves partnering with employers • Improves alumni-institution relationship • Improves student learning (the bottom line)

  18. What’s Next? We Need to... • Follow through on the major findings and recommendations: • College level • Department level • Implement and refine the feedback paths and interactions with our constituent groups:

More Related